@gulfgal98
server but Crowdstrike.

The FBI’s Outside Contractors, DNC Servers & Crowdstrike

And I find the timing of actions by the DNC extremely coincidental in light of Admiral Rogers’ discoveries in late March 2016.

March 2016 – NSA Director Rogers became aware of improper access to raw FISA data.
Late March 2016 – FBI Agents visited the Clinton Campaign Headquarters in Brooklyn.
April 2016 – NSA Director Rogers ordered the NSA compliance officer to run a full audit on Section 702 compliance.
April 18, 2016 – Admiral Rogers shut down all Outside Contractor access to the FISA Search System.
April 18, 2016 – Russia launched a “second attack” on the DNC servers.
April 28, 2016 – DNC CEO Amy Dacy spoke with Michael Sussmann, a DNC lawyer and partner with Perkins Coie. Sussmann contacted Shawn Henry, CSO and President of Crowdstrike Services.
April 28, 2016 – Crowdstrike was brought in. Crowdstrike was the only entity allowed access to the DNC Servers.

https://themarketswork.com/2018/05/18/the-fbis-outside-contractors-dnc-s...

Read the above. It totally takes apart this ‘hacking’ garbage.

And just to back the above up:

The Uncovering – Mike Rogers’ Investigation, Section 702 FISA Abuse & the FBI

https://themarketswork.com/2018/04/05/the-uncovering-mike-rogers-investi...

No one "hacked" the DNC.

The term "hack" assumes that an outsider remotely downloaded the files. But the VIPS did an analysis of the download speeds and times and concluded that it was an inside job which means it was a leak, not a hack.

@dervish

If they didn't send and receive a bunch of e-mails with slimy information in them in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem. Imagine hacking them, and then finding nothing of interest.

@dkmich
were was a way to distract from what the leaked emails said.

https://newspunch.com/report-dnc-not-hacked-russians/

According to forensic evidence, the files taken from the DNC between 23 and 25 May 2016, were copied onto a file storage device.

Thegatewaypundit.com reports: If the Russians actually had conducted an internet based hack of the DNC computer network then the evidence of such an attack would have been collected and stored by the National Security Agency.

The technical systems to accomplish this task have been in place since 2002. The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election:

“We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.”

The phrase, “moderate confidence” is intelligence speak for “we have no hard evidence.” Thanks to the leaks by Edward Snowden, we know with certainty that the NSA had the capability to examine and analyze the DNC emails. NSA routinely “vacuumed up” email traffic transiting the U.S. using robust collection systems (whether or not anyone in the NSA chose to look for this data is another question). If those emails had been hijacked over the internet then NSA also would have been able to track the electronic path they traveled over the internet. This kind of data would allow the NSA to declare without reservation or caveat that the Russians were guilty. The NSA could admit to such a fact in an unclassified assessment without compromising sources and methods. Instead, the NSA only claimed to have moderate confidence in the judgement regarding Russian meddling. If the NSA had hard intelligence to support the judgement the conclusion would have been stated as “full confidence.”

@Dr. John Carpenter

First off, the MSM never really reported on the contents of the emails in any meaningful way.

This is why Hillary and Podesta cooked the whole damn thing up in the first place and it's in the email that Wikileaks released. She didn't want the media to focus on their content and look at how well it worked.

The campaign HER ran was stunningly inept and presumptuous.

"It's my turn and I'll cheat if I want to!" Sung to the snappy tune, "it's my party..". Whilst Her's campaign staff were begging her to come to the Midwest where Trump eventually won she was in California at another wealthy fundraiser instead. Her staff warned her that there were problems there, but I think she really thought that it was in the bag for her. Hell she didn't even have to work hard during the primary because she knew that the fix was in.

Bottom line for me is that Herheinous lost to Trump on her own because of the true baggage tied to her going all the way back to her time in the WH with Bill. Welfare reform. The crime bill. Every military intervention she heard about she voted for. Plus did she really think that giving paid speeches to the banks just before she declared wouldn't come back to bite her on her bum?

Calling people deplorables was probably the last nail for her coffin and any chance of winning.

I know that seems like a reasonable assumption but I’m not convinced.

First off, the MSM never really reported on the contents of the emails in any meaningful way. If we are to believe these emails influenced voters, who has proved it? The only people I saw talking about the contents were the people who likely had their minds made up anyway. It’s not like the emails dropped and HER polling dropped. It seems like the contents either confirmed what one already believed or were ignored.

The other thing being the idea that the Trump campaign gleaned some insight to HER campaign plans that they used in some meaningful way. Just looking at the chaotic, stumbling upwards campaign Trump ran, I find that charge really hard to believe. I doubt he would have run any differently either way.

And the whole nature of this question assumes HER was set to win. I don’t think that’s a safe assumption either. As has been noted, HER was incredibly unpopular and had huge negatives going into the election. The campaign HER ran was stunningly inept and presumptuous. The release of the emails didn’t cause her to offer nothing to voters, skip crucial states or give Bernie supporters the middle finger.

And to that end, lets not overlook that what the emails detail (for instance, the fraud committed against Sanders’s voters) happened. The attitude of contempt for those voters wasn’t disguised by the campaign. Again, all the emails did was confirm what everyone suspected. I doubt the existence of evidence changed too many minds.

And finally, what government is benefitting from a Trump presidency in any way that they wouldn’t have if HER had won? While I certainly agree Israel has too much influence in US politics, I don’t exactly see a Democratic administration being much different on this one.

I really don’t think any foreign government had anything to do with the release of these emails. I really think the answer is as simple as they were leaked by a whistleblower, most likely Seth Rich.